I am not sure what the difficulty is here. Non-material may simply mean that the material of the glorified body is not precisely the same as currently recognizable, testable, dateable, puncturable flesh and bone...etc.

Ya, he doesn't seem like a well-liked man among those who disagree with his ecclesiological theology. I guess now they can have something else to disagree with as well.

Which is kind of sad, because he seems to be a very well-educated and pleasant man. I heard only good things from people who saw him in person and heard him talk. And I really enjoyed reading his catechism, except of course the fragment I quoted.

Ya, he doesn't seem like a well-liked man among those who disagree with his ecclesiological theology. I guess now they can have something else to disagree with as well.

Which is kind of sad, because he seems to be a very well-educated and pleasant man. I heard only good things from people who saw him in person and heard him talk. And I really enjoyed reading his catechism, except of course the fragment I quoted.

Then send a message to the Metropolitan first. Perhaps he can clarify these teachings and let him know what you learned to be the correct Orthodox theology.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Ya, he doesn't seem like a well-liked man among those who disagree with his ecclesiological theology. I guess now they can have something else to disagree with as well.

Which is kind of sad, because he seems to be a very well-educated and pleasant man. I heard only good things from people who saw him in person and heard him talk. And I really enjoyed reading his catechism, except of course the fragment I quoted.

Then send a message to the Metropolitan first. Perhaps he can clarify these teachings and let him know what you learned to be the correct Orthodox theology.

It might be salutary to consult a primary source before we take up pitchforks and storm this particular castle. The following is written by Metropolitan Hilarion himself. My comments are in blue.

"THE EUCHARIST

The Eucharist (Greek eucharistia, ‘thanksgiving’), or the sacrament of Holy Communion, is ‘the sacrament of sacraments’, ‘the mystery of mysteries’. The Eucharist has a central significance in the life of the Church and of every Christian. It is not merely one of many sacred actions or ‘a means of receiving grace’: it is the very heart of the Church, her foundation, without which the existence of the Church cannot be imagined. Anything amiss here?

The sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. The Last Supper of Christ with the disciples was, in its outward ritual, the traditional Jewish Paschal meal when the members of every family in Israel gathered to taste of the sacrificial lamb. This Supper was attended by Christ’s disciples: not His relatives in the flesh, but that family which would later grow into the Church. Instead of the lamb, Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice ‘like that of a lamb without blemish or spot’, ‘He was destined before the foundation of the world’ for the salvation of people (1 Peter 1:19-20). At the Last Supper Christ transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, communicated the apostles and commanded them to celebrate this sacrament in remembrance of Him. After His death on the Cross and His Resurrection the disciples would gather on the first day of the week (the so called ‘day of the sun’, or Sunday) for the ‘breaking of bread’. I don't find this objectionable, do you?

Originally the Eucharist was a meal accompanied by readings from Scripture, a sermon and prayer. It would sometimes continue through the night. Gradually, as the Christian communities grew, the Eucharist was transformed from an evening supper to a divine service. Ditto!

The most ancient elements that constitute the Eucharistic rite are the reading from Holy Scripture, prayers for all of the people, the kiss of peace, thanksgiving to the Father (to which the people reply ‘Amen’), the fraction (breaking of bread), and Communion. In the early Church each community had its own Eucharist, but all of these elements were present in every eucharistic rite. The bishop’s prayer was originally improvised, and only later were the eucharistic prayers written down. In the early Church a multitude of eucharistic rites were used: they were called ‘Liturgies’ (Greek leitourgia means ‘common action’, ‘work’, ‘service’). Orthodox!

The eucharistic offering has the sense of a sacrifice in which Christ Himself is ‘the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received’. Christ is the one true celebrant of the Eucharist: He is invisibly present in the church and acts through the priest. For Orthodox Christians the Eucharist is not merely a symbolic action performed in remembrance of the Mystical Supper; it is rather the Mystical Supper itself, renewed daily by Christ and continuing uninterruptedly in the Church from that Paschal night when Christ reclined at the table with His disciples. ‘Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me this day as a partaker’, says the believer as he approaches Holy Communion. Orthodox!!!

The Orthodox Church believes that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become not only a symbol of Christ’s presence, but the real Body and Blood of Christ. This belief has been held in the Christian Church from the very beginning. Christ Himself says: ‘For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him’ (John 6:55-56). No problemo!

The union of the believer with Christ in the Eucharist is not symbolic and figurative, but genuine, real and integral. As Christ suffuses the bread and wine with Himself, filling them with His divine presence, so He enters into the human person, filling his flesh and blood with His life-giving presence and divine energy. In the Eucharist we become of the same body with Christ, Who enters us as He entered the womb of the Virgin Mary. Our flesh in the Eucharist receives a leaven of incorruption, it becomes deified, and when it dies and becomes subject to corruption, this leaven becomes the pledge of its future resurrection. Amen!

Because of the Eucharist’s uniqueness the Church attaches to it a special significance in the cause of the salvation of humanity. Beyond the Eucharist there can be no salvation, no deification, no true life, no resurrection in eternity: ‘Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (John 6:53-54). Hence the church Fathers advise Christians never to decline the Eucharist and to take Communion as often as possible. ‘Endeavour to gather more often for the Eucharist and the glorification of God’, says St Ignatius of Antioch. The words from the Lord’s prayer ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ (Matt.6:11) were sometimes interpreted as a call to daily reception of the Eucharist. This may be somewhat controversial as some churches evidently do not practice frequent communion. I agree with the Metropolitan.

The Church reminds us that all those who approach Holy Communion must be ready to encounter Christ. Hence the necessity of proper preparation, which should not be limited to the reading of a certain number of prayers and abstinence from particular types of food. In the first instance readiness for Communion is conditioned by a pure conscience, the absence of enmity towards our neighbours or a grievance against anyone, by peace in our relationships with all people. Obstacles to Communion are particular grave sins committed by a person who should repent of them in confession. Orthodox aussi!

The contrition that comes from a sense of one’s own sinfulness is a necessary condition for Communion. This does not, however, prevent the Christian from receiving the Eucharist as a celebration of joy and thanksgiving. By its very nature the Eucharist is a solemn thanksgiving, fundamental to which is praise of God. Herein lies the paradox and mystery of the Eucharist: it has to be approached with both repentance and joy. With repentance from a sense of one’s unworthiness, and with joy at the fact that the Lord in the Eucharist cleanses, sanctifies and deifies the human person, renders him worthy in spite of his unworthiness. In the Eucharist not only the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but also the communicant himself is transformed from an old into a new person; he is freed from the burden of sin and illumined by divine light." Amen, amen and amen!

Ya, he doesn't seem like a well-liked man among those who disagree with his ecclesiological theology. I guess now they can have something else to disagree with as well.

Which is kind of sad, because he seems to be a very well-educated and pleasant man. I heard only good things from people who saw him in person and heard him talk. And I really enjoyed reading his catechism, except of course the fragment I quoted.

Then send a message to the Metropolitan first. Perhaps he can clarify these teachings and let him know what you learned to be the correct Orthodox theology.

It might be salutary to consult a primary source before we take up pitchforks and storm this particular castle. The following is written by Metropolitan Hilarion himself. My comments are in blue.

"THE EUCHARIST

The Eucharist (Greek eucharistia, ‘thanksgiving’), or the sacrament of Holy Communion, is ‘the sacrament of sacraments’, ‘the mystery of mysteries’. The Eucharist has a central significance in the life of the Church and of every Christian. It is not merely one of many sacred actions or ‘a means of receiving grace’: it is the very heart of the Church, her foundation, without which the existence of the Church cannot be imagined. Anything amiss here?

The sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. The Last Supper of Christ with the disciples was, in its outward ritual, the traditional Jewish Paschal meal when the members of every family in Israel gathered to taste of the sacrificial lamb. This Supper was attended by Christ’s disciples: not His relatives in the flesh, but that family which would later grow into the Church. Instead of the lamb, Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice ‘like that of a lamb without blemish or spot’, ‘He was destined before the foundation of the world’ for the salvation of people (1 Peter 1:19-20). At the Last Supper Christ transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, communicated the apostles and commanded them to celebrate this sacrament in remembrance of Him. After His death on the Cross and His Resurrection the disciples would gather on the first day of the week (the so called ‘day of the sun’, or Sunday) for the ‘breaking of bread’. I don't find this objectionable, do you?

Originally the Eucharist was a meal accompanied by readings from Scripture, a sermon and prayer. It would sometimes continue through the night. Gradually, as the Christian communities grew, the Eucharist was transformed from an evening supper to a divine service. Ditto!

The most ancient elements that constitute the Eucharistic rite are the reading from Holy Scripture, prayers for all of the people, the kiss of peace, thanksgiving to the Father (to which the people reply ‘Amen’), the fraction (breaking of bread), and Communion. In the early Church each community had its own Eucharist, but all of these elements were present in every eucharistic rite. The bishop’s prayer was originally improvised, and only later were the eucharistic prayers written down. In the early Church a multitude of eucharistic rites were used: they were called ‘Liturgies’ (Greek leitourgia means ‘common action’, ‘work’, ‘service’). Orthodox!

The eucharistic offering has the sense of a sacrifice in which Christ Himself is ‘the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received’. Christ is the one true celebrant of the Eucharist: He is invisibly present in the church and acts through the priest. For Orthodox Christians the Eucharist is not merely a symbolic action performed in remembrance of the Mystical Supper; it is rather the Mystical Supper itself, renewed daily by Christ and continuing uninterruptedly in the Church from that Paschal night when Christ reclined at the table with His disciples. ‘Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me this day as a partaker’, says the believer as he approaches Holy Communion. Orthodox!!!

The Orthodox Church believes that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become not only a symbol of Christ’s presence, but the real Body and Blood of Christ. This belief has been held in the Christian Church from the very beginning. Christ Himself says: ‘For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him’ (John 6:55-56). No problemo!

The union of the believer with Christ in the Eucharist is not symbolic and figurative, but genuine, real and integral. As Christ suffuses the bread and wine with Himself, filling them with His divine presence, so He enters into the human person, filling his flesh and blood with His life-giving presence and divine energy. In the Eucharist we become of the same body with Christ, Who enters us as He entered the womb of the Virgin Mary. Our flesh in the Eucharist receives a leaven of incorruption, it becomes deified, and when it dies and becomes subject to corruption, this leaven becomes the pledge of its future resurrection. Amen!

Because of the Eucharist’s uniqueness the Church attaches to it a special significance in the cause of the salvation of humanity. Beyond the Eucharist there can be no salvation, no deification, no true life, no resurrection in eternity: ‘Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (John 6:53-54). Hence the church Fathers advise Christians never to decline the Eucharist and to take Communion as often as possible. ‘Endeavour to gather more often for the Eucharist and the glorification of God’, says St Ignatius of Antioch. The words from the Lord’s prayer ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ (Matt.6:11) were sometimes interpreted as a call to daily reception of the Eucharist. This may be somewhat controversial as some churches evidently do not practice frequent communion. I agree with the Metropolitan.

The Church reminds us that all those who approach Holy Communion must be ready to encounter Christ. Hence the necessity of proper preparation, which should not be limited to the reading of a certain number of prayers and abstinence from particular types of food. In the first instance readiness for Communion is conditioned by a pure conscience, the absence of enmity towards our neighbours or a grievance against anyone, by peace in our relationships with all people. Obstacles to Communion are particular grave sins committed by a person who should repent of them in confession. Orthodox aussi!

The contrition that comes from a sense of one’s own sinfulness is a necessary condition for Communion. This does not, however, prevent the Christian from receiving the Eucharist as a celebration of joy and thanksgiving. By its very nature the Eucharist is a solemn thanksgiving, fundamental to which is praise of God. Herein lies the paradox and mystery of the Eucharist: it has to be approached with both repentance and joy. With repentance from a sense of one’s unworthiness, and with joy at the fact that the Lord in the Eucharist cleanses, sanctifies and deifies the human person, renders him worthy in spite of his unworthiness. In the Eucharist not only the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but also the communicant himself is transformed from an old into a new person; he is freed from the burden of sin and illumined by divine light." Amen, amen and amen!

My point was that in his catechism, Metr. Hilarion talks about the resurrected body of a human being as something immaterial, rid of matter, or not made of matter (H, He, Na, Ca, Si, C, O, N, P, S, protons, electrons, electron orbitals, mesons, gluons etc.). If he is right, than matter as we know it will not be saved.

That matter is saved is an important dogma of the Church. We still struggle with Origenism in theological writings. What a shame. As for the op...

"My flesh is food indeed..." In other words, it is not given as cannibalistic flesh, but as food--the true Body of the Bread of life "as food for the faithful." Thus, it appears as bread, not as an accident upon its being changed. Rather, it is common bread that has truly been changed into and become the Bread of Life. Christ is risen!

The Vigil for the coming feast of Thomas' Sunday has quite a bit to say about Christ's resurrected body:

From Vespers:

When the doors were shut, You came, O Christ to your Disciples. Thomas, by divine dispensation, was not with them then; for he said ‘I will not believe, unless I too see the Master; see the side from which came the blood, the water, baptism; see the wound by which the deep wound, humanity, was healed; see that He was not like some spirit, but flesh and bones’. O Lord who trampled on death, and satisfied Thomas, glory to You.

From the Litia:

O Lord, when doors were shut You came in the unbearable blaze of Your Godhead, and standing among Your Disciples You bared Your side. You showed them the scars of the wounds in Your hands and feet, and banishing their dejection You cried out clearly: ‘The way You see me, my friends, I bear, not a spirit’s nature, but the flesh which I assumed’. To the doubting Disciple, ‘you were ready to handle Me with dread’, He said, ‘you investigate all things, come then, do not hesitate’. But he, sensing with his hand Your double being, with fear cried out in faith: ‘My Lord and my God, glory to You.’

From Matins:Ode 6:

The Saviour said, ‘Handle Me and see that I have bones and flesh. I am not changed’.

Exaposteilarion:

Having examined the wounds in My limbs with your hand, Thomas, do not doubt Me, who was wounded for you. Be of one mind with the Disciples and proclaim a living God.

From the Praises:

After Your dread Rising from the tomb, O Giver of life, just as You did not break the seals of the grave, O Christ, so You came when the doors were shut to Your all-famed Apostles, filling them with joy, and at once You gave them Your Spirit, in Your measureless mercy.

‘As you wish, handle Me’, Christ cried to Thomas. ‘Put in your hand and know that I have bones and an earthly body; and do not be unbelieving, but believe like the rest’. But he cried out, ‘You are my Lord and my God; glory to Your Rising’.

As I allus' say, look at the Church's hymnody for the answers to many questions.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Ya, he doesn't seem like a well-liked man among those who disagree with his ecclesiological theology. I guess now they can have something else to disagree with as well.

Which is kind of sad, because he seems to be a very well-educated and pleasant man. I heard only good things from people who saw him in person and heard him talk. And I really enjoyed reading his catechism, except of course the fragment I quoted.

Then send a message to the Metropolitan first. Perhaps he can clarify these teachings and let him know what you learned to be the correct Orthodox theology.

It might be salutary to consult a primary source before we take up pitchforks and storm this particular castle. The following is written by Metropolitan Hilarion himself. My comments are in blue.

"THE EUCHARIST

The Eucharist (Greek eucharistia, ‘thanksgiving’), or the sacrament of Holy Communion, is ‘the sacrament of sacraments’, ‘the mystery of mysteries’. The Eucharist has a central significance in the life of the Church and of every Christian. It is not merely one of many sacred actions or ‘a means of receiving grace’: it is the very heart of the Church, her foundation, without which the existence of the Church cannot be imagined. Anything amiss here?

The sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. The Last Supper of Christ with the disciples was, in its outward ritual, the traditional Jewish Paschal meal when the members of every family in Israel gathered to taste of the sacrificial lamb. This Supper was attended by Christ’s disciples: not His relatives in the flesh, but that family which would later grow into the Church. Instead of the lamb, Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice ‘like that of a lamb without blemish or spot’, ‘He was destined before the foundation of the world’ for the salvation of people (1 Peter 1:19-20). At the Last Supper Christ transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, communicated the apostles and commanded them to celebrate this sacrament in remembrance of Him. After His death on the Cross and His Resurrection the disciples would gather on the first day of the week (the so called ‘day of the sun’, or Sunday) for the ‘breaking of bread’. I don't find this objectionable, do you?

Originally the Eucharist was a meal accompanied by readings from Scripture, a sermon and prayer. It would sometimes continue through the night. Gradually, as the Christian communities grew, the Eucharist was transformed from an evening supper to a divine service. Ditto!

The most ancient elements that constitute the Eucharistic rite are the reading from Holy Scripture, prayers for all of the people, the kiss of peace, thanksgiving to the Father (to which the people reply ‘Amen’), the fraction (breaking of bread), and Communion. In the early Church each community had its own Eucharist, but all of these elements were present in every eucharistic rite. The bishop’s prayer was originally improvised, and only later were the eucharistic prayers written down. In the early Church a multitude of eucharistic rites were used: they were called ‘Liturgies’ (Greek leitourgia means ‘common action’, ‘work’, ‘service’). Orthodox!

The eucharistic offering has the sense of a sacrifice in which Christ Himself is ‘the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received’. Christ is the one true celebrant of the Eucharist: He is invisibly present in the church and acts through the priest. For Orthodox Christians the Eucharist is not merely a symbolic action performed in remembrance of the Mystical Supper; it is rather the Mystical Supper itself, renewed daily by Christ and continuing uninterruptedly in the Church from that Paschal night when Christ reclined at the table with His disciples. ‘Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me this day as a partaker’, says the believer as he approaches Holy Communion. Orthodox!!!

The Orthodox Church believes that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become not only a symbol of Christ’s presence, but the real Body and Blood of Christ. This belief has been held in the Christian Church from the very beginning. Christ Himself says: ‘For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him’ (John 6:55-56). No problemo!

The union of the believer with Christ in the Eucharist is not symbolic and figurative, but genuine, real and integral. As Christ suffuses the bread and wine with Himself, filling them with His divine presence, so He enters into the human person, filling his flesh and blood with His life-giving presence and divine energy. In the Eucharist we become of the same body with Christ, Who enters us as He entered the womb of the Virgin Mary. Our flesh in the Eucharist receives a leaven of incorruption, it becomes deified, and when it dies and becomes subject to corruption, this leaven becomes the pledge of its future resurrection. Amen!

Because of the Eucharist’s uniqueness the Church attaches to it a special significance in the cause of the salvation of humanity. Beyond the Eucharist there can be no salvation, no deification, no true life, no resurrection in eternity: ‘Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (John 6:53-54). Hence the church Fathers advise Christians never to decline the Eucharist and to take Communion as often as possible. ‘Endeavour to gather more often for the Eucharist and the glorification of God’, says St Ignatius of Antioch. The words from the Lord’s prayer ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ (Matt.6:11) were sometimes interpreted as a call to daily reception of the Eucharist. This may be somewhat controversial as some churches evidently do not practice frequent communion. I agree with the Metropolitan.

The Church reminds us that all those who approach Holy Communion must be ready to encounter Christ. Hence the necessity of proper preparation, which should not be limited to the reading of a certain number of prayers and abstinence from particular types of food. In the first instance readiness for Communion is conditioned by a pure conscience, the absence of enmity towards our neighbours or a grievance against anyone, by peace in our relationships with all people. Obstacles to Communion are particular grave sins committed by a person who should repent of them in confession. Orthodox aussi!

The contrition that comes from a sense of one’s own sinfulness is a necessary condition for Communion. This does not, however, prevent the Christian from receiving the Eucharist as a celebration of joy and thanksgiving. By its very nature the Eucharist is a solemn thanksgiving, fundamental to which is praise of God. Herein lies the paradox and mystery of the Eucharist: it has to be approached with both repentance and joy. With repentance from a sense of one’s unworthiness, and with joy at the fact that the Lord in the Eucharist cleanses, sanctifies and deifies the human person, renders him worthy in spite of his unworthiness. In the Eucharist not only the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but also the communicant himself is transformed from an old into a new person; he is freed from the burden of sin and illumined by divine light." Amen, amen and amen!

I found nothing wrong with that article, but that doesn't answer the question. The question is what does His Eminence believe the flesh and blood of Christ to be? Is it immaterial? Are we going to rise up from the dead immaterial? If that's what he believes, then I think that's a very serious issue. We believe, we will rise up with the same flesh as before, and that the Christ risen now is still consubstantial with us now, only in a much more transcendent human nature than before.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Unless the Church answers this in a straightforward fashion, the struggle you mention will continue and Origenism will prevail. Especially since the history of anti-Origenist anaphemas is pretty dark and political.

As I allus' say, look at the Church's hymnody for the answers to many questions.

But just recently, I asked this question, are there elementary particles in the body Jesus Christ has today, and one of our most erudite posters, Witega, immediately said that it is unknown... Why is it unknown?

Ya, he doesn't seem like a well-liked man among those who disagree with his ecclesiological theology. I guess now they can have something else to disagree with as well.

Which is kind of sad, because he seems to be a very well-educated and pleasant man. I heard only good things from people who saw him in person and heard him talk. And I really enjoyed reading his catechism, except of course the fragment I quoted.

Then send a message to the Metropolitan first. Perhaps he can clarify these teachings and let him know what you learned to be the correct Orthodox theology.

It might be salutary to consult a primary source before we take up pitchforks and storm this particular castle. The following is written by Metropolitan Hilarion himself. My comments are in blue.

"THE EUCHARIST

The Eucharist (Greek eucharistia, ‘thanksgiving’), or the sacrament of Holy Communion, is ‘the sacrament of sacraments’, ‘the mystery of mysteries’. The Eucharist has a central significance in the life of the Church and of every Christian. It is not merely one of many sacred actions or ‘a means of receiving grace’: it is the very heart of the Church, her foundation, without which the existence of the Church cannot be imagined. Anything amiss here?

The sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. The Last Supper of Christ with the disciples was, in its outward ritual, the traditional Jewish Paschal meal when the members of every family in Israel gathered to taste of the sacrificial lamb. This Supper was attended by Christ’s disciples: not His relatives in the flesh, but that family which would later grow into the Church. Instead of the lamb, Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice ‘like that of a lamb without blemish or spot’, ‘He was destined before the foundation of the world’ for the salvation of people (1 Peter 1:19-20). At the Last Supper Christ transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, communicated the apostles and commanded them to celebrate this sacrament in remembrance of Him. After His death on the Cross and His Resurrection the disciples would gather on the first day of the week (the so called ‘day of the sun’, or Sunday) for the ‘breaking of bread’. I don't find this objectionable, do you?

Originally the Eucharist was a meal accompanied by readings from Scripture, a sermon and prayer. It would sometimes continue through the night. Gradually, as the Christian communities grew, the Eucharist was transformed from an evening supper to a divine service. Ditto!

The most ancient elements that constitute the Eucharistic rite are the reading from Holy Scripture, prayers for all of the people, the kiss of peace, thanksgiving to the Father (to which the people reply ‘Amen’), the fraction (breaking of bread), and Communion. In the early Church each community had its own Eucharist, but all of these elements were present in every eucharistic rite. The bishop’s prayer was originally improvised, and only later were the eucharistic prayers written down. In the early Church a multitude of eucharistic rites were used: they were called ‘Liturgies’ (Greek leitourgia means ‘common action’, ‘work’, ‘service’). Orthodox!

The eucharistic offering has the sense of a sacrifice in which Christ Himself is ‘the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received’. Christ is the one true celebrant of the Eucharist: He is invisibly present in the church and acts through the priest. For Orthodox Christians the Eucharist is not merely a symbolic action performed in remembrance of the Mystical Supper; it is rather the Mystical Supper itself, renewed daily by Christ and continuing uninterruptedly in the Church from that Paschal night when Christ reclined at the table with His disciples. ‘Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me this day as a partaker’, says the believer as he approaches Holy Communion. Orthodox!!!

The Orthodox Church believes that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become not only a symbol of Christ’s presence, but the real Body and Blood of Christ. This belief has been held in the Christian Church from the very beginning. Christ Himself says: ‘For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him’ (John 6:55-56). No problemo!

The union of the believer with Christ in the Eucharist is not symbolic and figurative, but genuine, real and integral. As Christ suffuses the bread and wine with Himself, filling them with His divine presence, so He enters into the human person, filling his flesh and blood with His life-giving presence and divine energy. In the Eucharist we become of the same body with Christ, Who enters us as He entered the womb of the Virgin Mary. Our flesh in the Eucharist receives a leaven of incorruption, it becomes deified, and when it dies and becomes subject to corruption, this leaven becomes the pledge of its future resurrection. Amen!

Because of the Eucharist’s uniqueness the Church attaches to it a special significance in the cause of the salvation of humanity. Beyond the Eucharist there can be no salvation, no deification, no true life, no resurrection in eternity: ‘Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (John 6:53-54). Hence the church Fathers advise Christians never to decline the Eucharist and to take Communion as often as possible. ‘Endeavour to gather more often for the Eucharist and the glorification of God’, says St Ignatius of Antioch. The words from the Lord’s prayer ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ (Matt.6:11) were sometimes interpreted as a call to daily reception of the Eucharist. This may be somewhat controversial as some churches evidently do not practice frequent communion. I agree with the Metropolitan.

The Church reminds us that all those who approach Holy Communion must be ready to encounter Christ. Hence the necessity of proper preparation, which should not be limited to the reading of a certain number of prayers and abstinence from particular types of food. In the first instance readiness for Communion is conditioned by a pure conscience, the absence of enmity towards our neighbours or a grievance against anyone, by peace in our relationships with all people. Obstacles to Communion are particular grave sins committed by a person who should repent of them in confession. Orthodox aussi!

The contrition that comes from a sense of one’s own sinfulness is a necessary condition for Communion. This does not, however, prevent the Christian from receiving the Eucharist as a celebration of joy and thanksgiving. By its very nature the Eucharist is a solemn thanksgiving, fundamental to which is praise of God. Herein lies the paradox and mystery of the Eucharist: it has to be approached with both repentance and joy. With repentance from a sense of one’s unworthiness, and with joy at the fact that the Lord in the Eucharist cleanses, sanctifies and deifies the human person, renders him worthy in spite of his unworthiness. In the Eucharist not only the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but also the communicant himself is transformed from an old into a new person; he is freed from the burden of sin and illumined by divine light." Amen, amen and amen!

My point was that in his catechism, Metr. Hilarion talks about the resurrected body of a human being as something immaterial, rid of matter, or not made of matter (H, He, Na, Ca, Si, C, O, N, P, S, protons, electrons, electron orbitals, mesons, gluons etc.). If he is right, than matter as we know it will not be saved.

Well, I am a few months short of Medicare eligibility so I am not as sharp as I used to be. I cannot find where in the English version of his catechism (see my link above) Metropolitan Hilarion has written what you claim he did. Can you help me out please?

However, I think it is essentially a scholastic argument that we are entertaining here. Metropolitan Hilarion, along with countless other Orthodox theologians, has defined the Eucharist as a mystery and affirmed the real presence of Christ in complete consonance with the words of Christ himself. I fail to see how one can further explore this mystery, how one can rationalize it and subject it to scientific analysis.

BTW, it may help to once again refer to the institution of this mystery. At the Last Supper, Jesus is physically present and specifically designates bread as His body and wine as His blood. Look at this another way--and I apologize for being gross: he did not slice off a piece of his body and opened up his veins. So, it was mystery then and so it is now. We should accept this in faith and quit speculating.

Bottom line: does it really matter if our resurrected body is of one sort or another? If we are a lamb, we will be so happy that we will not care or may be not even notice. Conversely, if we are a goat, we will be so sad and so much in pain that we will also not care.

"According to many church Fathers, the new body will be immaterial and incorruptible, like the body of Christ after His resurrection. However, as St Gregory of Nyssa points out, there will still be an affinity between a person’s new immaterial body and the one he had possessed in his earthly life."

In the Russian version, as I quoted, this notion of "immateriality" is even more strongly emphasized, and there is no "according to many" part - the immateriality is presented as an axiom.

Why analyze this, well... Like I said, in my home country, Ukraine, from among the people whom I know and who think they are Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic, virtually no one will agree that we will rise in our own material bodies. Also no one agrees that Christ ascended into Heaven as a human being who had material body. When I say this, people invariably react to this, "he must be completely crazy, nuts, an imbecile who just discredits the Church by selling some nutty ideas as the teaching of the Church. The Church simply cannot teach that material body of Christ flew up into the sky. The Church simply cannot teach that we will be in heaven or in hell having eyes, eyebrows, hands, fingernails, intestines etc. The Church simply cannot teach that the matter of the bread that we swallow during the Eucharist is the matter of Christ's body (i.e. of His fat? lard? hair? toenails?). The Church simply cannot teach that the wine we swallow during the Eucharist is a true human blood, because it is enough to look at it for a split second under the microscope to be convinced that it does not have red and white blood cells or platelets. So, the guy is nuts." And people continue to believe that Christ was man only when He walked on earth, but right now He is only God. And the pure immaterial souls of the righteous are in Heaven and will remain there, while the bad souls of sinners are being tormented in hell, and will be.

Thank you so much for the reference. I got a different take than you did. It seems to me that Metropolitan Hilarion's main emphasis is not in what the resurrected body will be but on what it will not. I am citing a larger context and bolding the relevant words.

"According to many church Fathers, the new body will be immaterial and incorruptible, like the body of Christ after His resurrection. However, as St Gregory of Nyssa points out, there will still be an affinity between a person’s new immaterial body and the one he had possessed in his earthly life. Gregory sees the proof of this in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: the former would not have recognized the latter in Hell if no physical characteristics remained that allowed people to identify each other. There is what Gregory calls the ‘seal’ of the former body imprinted on every soul. The appearance of one’s new incorruptible body will in a fashion resemble the old material body. It is also maintained by St Gregory that the incorruptible body after the resurrection will bear none of the marks of corruption that characterized the material body, such as mutilation, aging, and so on.

Yes, it contains quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. You are correct, Heorhij, in pointing out errors in such writings. St. John of Damascus points out that even the created spirits (angels, human souls), although we call them "incorporeal" and "immaterial," yet we are doing so only with reference to the body which is "dense matter." "For in reality only the Deity is immaterial and incorporeal" (On the Orthodox Faith 2.3).

As I allus' say, look at the Church's hymnody for the answers to many questions.

But just recently, I asked this question, are there elementary particles in the body Jesus Christ has today, and one of our most erudite posters, Witega, immediately said that it is unknown... Why is it unknown?

It is not unknown. The answer is yes. It is truly His "flesh and bones" truly and fully deified without change in essence (i.e. material). This is at the very heart of the Christological controversies and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 7th Council reasoned that Christ can be depicted in icons because in His human nature He is circumscribed--his body is material.

Yes, it contains quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. You are correct, Heorhij, in pointing out errors in such writings. St. John of Damascus points out that even the created spirits (angels, human souls), although we call them "incorporeal" and "immaterial," yet we are doing so only with reference to the body which is "dense matter." "For in reality only the Deity is immaterial and incorporeal" (On the Orthodox Faith 2.3).

Speaking of St. John of Damascus, he also writes that right now, Christ is BODILY sitting on a throne in heaven. But one can read on the official OCA web page that "is seated on the right hand of the Father" does NOT mean that Christ is literally sitting on a literal throne.. (I'll find the link if people want me to)

As I allus' say, look at the Church's hymnody for the answers to many questions.

But just recently, I asked this question, are there elementary particles in the body Jesus Christ has today, and one of our most erudite posters, Witega, immediately said that it is unknown... Why is it unknown?

It is not unknown. The answer is yes. It is truly His "flesh and bones" truly and fully deified without change in essence (i.e. material). This is at the very heart of the Christological controversies and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 7th Council reasoned that Christ can be depicted in icons because in His human nature He is circumscribed--his body is material.

Then why does a high-positioned Orthodox bishop write that His body after resurrection is immaterial and our risen bodies will be immaterial?

Then why does a high-positioned Orthodox bishop write that His body after resurrection is immaterial and our risen bodies will be immaterial?

It's quite clear from the extended quote that His Eminence is merely reporting the various teachings of the Church Fathers. Reading the full quote, I am reminded that St. Gregory of Nyssa did indeed speculate on these things more than others, and he did so from within the most advanced scientific consensus of his time, which held that there was such a thing as ethereal or light or less-mattery matter.

The body, according to late antique science, was made of heavy, gooey, coarse material, but was pervious to the light, refined, rarefied matter that interpenetrated it and the cosmos. Nowadays, we actually believe something similar -- that little atoms of a wide variety enter into our bodies through our pores, our nostrils, our mouths, and, eventually replace the atoms that had previously constituted our bodies -- we just don't think there's any elemental difference between one category and the other.

Even in late antique cosmology, though, rarified matter is still a "thing" of this universe, so the spiritual body is likewise a "thing" -- just a better thing.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

I do not read Russian and so am restricted to the English translation of The Mystery of Faith, but I am quite sure that Archbishop Hilarion's intentions regarding the assertion of the immateriality of the resurrected body have been misunderstood by Heorhij. In fact, the Archbishop devotes very little attention in his book to the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of resurrection bodies. This might be appropriately judged a weakness of his book, but of course an author can only say so much in any given volume. Hilarion does not define for us precisely what he means by "immateriality," though he does, as already noted, state that "the incorruptible body after the resurrection will bear none of the marks of corruption that characterized the material body, such as mutilation, aging, and so on." Clearly, he is attempting to assert the mystery of continuity and discontinuity that characterizes the resurrection of Christ (and of our future resurrection): Jesus was not resuscitated; he was raised to a transformed, eschatological mode of existence about which we can speak very little. Why can we speak very little about it? Because the general resurrection has not yet happened! Ask any physicist what matter is, and he will hem and haw. We think we know what matter is, but in fact scientists find it very difficult to speak about it. How much more difficult must it be for us, on this side of the resurrection, to speak about matter in the life of the world to come. It is silly and unwise to pretend to a scientific knowledge of the Eschaton we do not presently have.

Does Hilarion believe that our corporeality is transformed and transfigured in the resurrection? Yes! He addresses this directly in chapter ten, "Deification," where he clearly affirms that our bodies participate in theosis, including the final transfiguration (p. 192).

It's all mystery. We can identify the boundaries of this mystery. We can identify the beliefs that distort and misrepresent the mystery, but the mystery itself must be respected.

Speaking of St. John of Damascus, he also writes that right now, Christ is BODILY sitting on a throne in heaven. But one can read on the official OCA web page that "is seated on the right hand of the Father" does NOT mean that Christ is literally sitting on a literal throne.. (I'll find the link if people want me to)

Here is what St John of Damascus writes:

Quote

We hold, moreover, that Christ sits in the body at the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place? Right hands and left hands belong to what is circumscribed. But we understand the right hand of the Father to be the glory and honour of the Godhead in which the Son of God, who existed as God before the ages, and is of like essence to the Father, and in the end became flesh, has a seat in the body, His flesh sharing in the glory. For He along with His flesh is adored with one adoration by all creation.

What is important to not here is the dual insistence that Christ is bodily risen and that his body transcends spatial location. Here is mystery. The only way to speak of this mystery is by way of paradox and metaphor.

It should be noted that the Western tradition differs from the Eastern tradition precisely on this point. From Augustine on, Western theologians have generally accepted the view that our Lord's resurrected body is spatially located in Heaven. The challenge then becomes how do we explain the presence of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist. How do we overcome the spatial barriers? The medieval teaching of Transubstantiation sought to provide an answer. Martin Luther broke with the Western tradition and rejected the idea that Heaven may be thought of as a "place."

For a 20th century Orthodox discussion of these matters, I recommend Sergius Bulgakov's essay "The Eucharistic Dogma," published in The Holy Grail and the Eucharist.

I do not read Russian and so am restricted to the English translation of The Mystery of Faith, but I am quite sure that Archbishop Hilarion's intentions regarding the assertion of the immateriality of the resurrected body have been misunderstood by Heorhij. In fact, the Archbishop devotes very little attention in his book to the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of resurrection bodies. This might be appropriately judged a weakness of his book, but of course an author can only say so much in any given volume. Hilarion does not define for us precisely what he means by "immateriality," though he does, as already noted, state that "the incorruptible body after the resurrection will bear none of the marks of corruption that characterized the material body, such as mutilation, aging, and so on." Clearly, he is attempting to assert the mystery of continuity and discontinuity that characterizes the resurrection of Christ (and of our future resurrection): Jesus was not resuscitated; he was raised to a transformed, eschatological mode of existence about which we can speak very little. Why can we speak very little about it? Because the general resurrection has not yet happened! Ask any physicist what matter is, and he will hem and haw.

I don't think that this "hemming and hawing" is so hopeless. We know something about matter. In fact, all the "positive" (empirical) knowledge we have is the knowledge about matter, because non-material things cannot be known through our sensory organs. So, we have learned that there exist chemical elements (hydrogen, helium, sodium, potassium, oxygen etc.), each element consisting of atoms with a unique positive charge (number of protons). Atoms form chemical bonds with each other, creating molecules (water, acids, bases, salts, glucose, amino acids, lipids, proteins etc.). We - I mean those of us who believe in God - believe that this is what God made, and that this is by itself "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Will all that be replaced by something entirely different in resurrected bodies? Why should it be? And why, then, early Fathers (St. John Chrysostomos for example) were so strong, so big on insisting that the resurrected body will be the SAME in terms of its "essence," just incorruptible? St. Gregory of Nyssa even speaks about God gathering the "stikhia" of our bodies (which St. Gregory understood as particles of water, earth, air and fire - but we now understand as molecules and atoms). I dunno, I am not a theologian but I just cannot but notice that Met. +HILARION's term "immaterial" is in sharp contrast with St. John and St. Gregory. (And again, like I said, in the Russian version of his book he does not write that the risen body will be immaterial according to some Fathers - he just plainly states, as an axiom, that it will not be made of matter, period. Believe me, I was born and raised in the former USSR and Russian together with Ukrainian is my first language; I know all the tiniest nuances of it.)

It's all mystery. We can identify the boundaries of this mystery. We can identify the beliefs that distort and misrepresent the mystery, but the mystery itself must be respected.

But there is subjectivism also. I agree about respect, but if we cannot clearly say even such a basic thing as whether or not God saves matter, whether or not matter (any matter!) will be even present in the risen bodies - then any person can create his or her own eschatology. I happen to know one person who very seriously says, for example, that our risen bodies, being purely spiritual, will not have any size or shape or any outward appearance known by senses. Pure Origenism? Yes, but he adds: read holy Fathers and show me in them, where exactly do they say anything about God saving matter, transforming electrons or protons, etc.? Nowhere. So, we will see contours of each other exclusively due to the beautific vision. No matter will be present in the Kingdom of God, no borders, shapes, sizes, weights, lengths, minutes, hours, notheing. Pure Spirit.

"For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: 'His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.'"

"IF anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial [body], and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit: let him be anathema." (Anathema 11 against Origen)

"For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: 'His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.'"

On this Metr. Hilarion's defenders might say, but just what IS this true "state and nature?" Maybe it is not atoms of hydrogen or sodium with their protons and neutrons and electrons? See, Akimel even claims that physicists do not know what matter is...

"IF anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial [body], and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit: let him be anathema." (Anathema 11 against Origen)

I heard from some Ukrainian Eastern Rite Catholics who call me a degenerate perverter of the true teaching of the Church (because I am a "materialist") that these so-called anathemas against Origen, written centuries after Origen's death, were not even discussed by the Council but added to the proceedings of the Council because emperor Justinian hated Origen... Some people do not want to consider these anathemas as reflections of the Church's teaching.

"For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: 'His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.'"

On this Metr. Hilarion's defenders might say, but just what IS this true "state and nature?" Maybe it is not atoms of hydrogen or sodium with their protons and neutrons and electrons? See, Akimel even claims that physicists do not know what matter is...

That's right. We don't know really what either matter or energy is. We talk a great deal about how it behaves and how to measure how it behaves but have precious nothing to say about what either one 'is'...

In that light Met. Hilarion is simply saying that the body won't be what we know of it today. The material world we experience won't be what we experience of it today...period. And in just that much...he is correct. And so I still don't see what all this is about...

"For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: 'His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.'"

On this Metr. Hilarion's defenders might say, but just what IS this true "state and nature?" Maybe it is not atoms of hydrogen or sodium with their protons and neutrons and electrons? See, Akimel even claims that physicists do not know what matter is...

That's right. We don't know really what either matter or energy is. We talk a great deal about how it behaves and how to measure how it behaves but have precious nothing to say about what either one 'is'...

In that light Met. Hilarion is simply saying that the body won't be what we know of it today. The material world we experience won't be what we experience of it today...period. And in just that much...he is correct. And so I still don't see what all this is about...

EM

It's abot the question, does God save matter, or is matter doomed. Again, of Ukrainians whom I know and who consider themselves Orthodox, practically all believe the latter.

In that light Met. Hilarion is simply saying that the body won't be what we know of it today. The material world we experience won't be what we experience of it today...period. And in just that much...he is correct. And so I still don't see what all this is about...

EM

It's abot the question, does God save matter, or is matter doomed. Again, of Ukrainians whom I know and who consider themselves Orthodox, practically all believe the latter.

All right. Thanks for your patience!!

So you say that most Ukrainians, Catholic and Orthodox, have an understanding that what...says that all that we know in life everlasting will be...what?...How does one dig down beneath believing that we will not be material, to see what people understand by "material".....They all may just be thinking of a very limited understanding...I ask?

Its interesting because both confessions are very clear that there will be a material world of some kind in life everlasting. We simply cannot say what kind or how it will behave.

So it is interesting to note an entire culture sees it slightly askew...yes?

In that light Met. Hilarion is simply saying that the body won't be what we know of it today. The material world we experience won't be what we experience of it today...period. And in just that much...he is correct. And so I still don't see what all this is about...

EM

It's abot the question, does God save matter, or is matter doomed. Again, of Ukrainians whom I know and who consider themselves Orthodox, practically all believe the latter.

All right. Thanks for your patience!!

So you say that most Ukrainians, Catholic and Orthodox, have an understanding that what...says that all that we know in life everlasting will be...what?...How does one dig down beneath believing that we will not be material, to see what people understand by "material".....They all may just be thinking of a very limited understanding...I ask?

Its interesting because both confessions are very clear that there will be a material world of some kind in life everlasting. We simply cannot say what kind or how it will behave.

So it is interesting to note an entire culture sees it slightly askew...yes?

EM

Maybe not the entire culture, but a lot of people. I remember that when I was at a cemetary with my wife and mother-in-law a few years ago, I said something about the resurrection of the body, and my mother-in-law became shocked, because she (an Orthodox, though not a regular churchgoer) have believed all her life that only souls or spirits live in paradise or hell. She never even heard about resurrection of the body, not once. And she is not entirely a product of the Soviet atheist upbringing because she is from Western Ukraine, from the part of Ukraine that became Soviet only in 1939 (she was born in 1931).

I have a little booklet of Ukrainian prayers to the saints on various occasions - and again, the vast majority of these prayers contain praises to various martyrs that they despised the body, as it should be despised, and taught us to think about the soul.

We know something about matter. In fact, all the "positive" (empirical) knowledge we have is the knowledge about matter, because non-material things cannot be known through our sensory organs. So, we have learned that there exist chemical elements (hydrogen, helium, sodium, potassium, oxygen etc.), each element consisting of atoms with a unique positive charge (number of protons). Atoms form chemical bonds with each other, creating molecules (water, acids, bases, salts, glucose, amino acids, lipids, proteins etc.).

But in fact if you speak to a physicist--and I've spoken to several precisely on this question--one discovers that matter is no easy matter (excuse the pun) about which to speak, much less analyze. Even a cursory review of the Wikipedia article on matter reveals the complexity of the debate between scientists. And things become even more complicated when one asks scientists and philosophers precisely what a "body" is.

Quote

We - I mean those of us who believe in God - believe that this is what God made, and that this is by itself "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Will all that be replaced by something entirely different in resurrected bodies? Why should it be?

The Apostle Paul was compelled to address the continuity and discontinuity of our resurrection bodies in 1 Cor 15. Consider how little information he in fact provides us. He says that there is a difference between a physical body and a spiritual body; but he does not tell us any more that. I see no need to go beyond what the Apostle himself has affirmed. I do not eschew speculation but I think the Church is wise not to dogmatize speculations. We must stay within the apostolic revelation. God has not provided us a book describing the physics of the Eschaton. What we are given is the good news of our Lord's bodily resurrection from the dead and the promise that we too shall be bodily raised with him in a transfigured creation. God does not abolish or annihilate that which he has made, but he does, and will, transform it beyond all our imaginings.

But how can we speak any further than this? We have no experience of eschatological matter; indeed, the only direct experience we have of matter is matter in its fallen state, matter divorced from life immortal. The Eastern Fathers teach that the bodies of Adam and Eve in Paradise were different from the bodies we know today. As patristics scholar Fr Irenaeus (Matthew Steenberg) writes:

Quote

In the vision of the fathers, the originally-created state of the human creature was bodily, and thus material; but the materiality of this first-fashioned man was not identical to the base materiality experienced today. Materiality and bodily nature as we experience it now has been affected by sin, which alters its state somewhat. This is a critical dimension to how the fathers understand the created nature of human existence--and it is one that is often not considered.

Thus St Maximus the Confessor says that after the Fall human flesh became "denser, mortal, and tough." What does this mean for our own understanding of matter?

Quote

And why, then, early Fathers (St. John Chrysostomos for example) were so strong, so big on insisting that the resurrected body will be the SAME in terms of its "essence," just incorruptible? St. Gregory of Nyssa even speaks about God gathering the "stikhia" of our bodies (which St. Gregory understood as particles of water, earth, air and fire - but we now understand as molecules and atoms). I dunno, I am not a theologian but I just cannot but notice that Met. +HILARION's term "immaterial" is in sharp contrast with St. John and St. Gregory. (And again, like I said, in the Russian version of his book he does not write that the risen body will be immaterial according to some Fathers - he just plainly states, as an axiom, that it will not be made of matter, period. Believe me, I was born and raised in the former USSR and Russian together with Ukrainian is my first language; I know all the tiniest nuances of it.)

I do not feel any obligation to defend Archbishop Hilarion on the point in question, but I do believe that you are interpreting him too rigidly. I doubt very seriously he intends to teach anything contrary to what Sts. John and Gregory taught. We would need to ask him precisely what he means by "immateriality." I certainly do not read him as asserting that God does not save matter in the resurrection of Christ. As already observed, he clearly states that theosis includes the divinization of the body. The words theologians use are often conditioned by arguments with others. Perhaps he is simply arguing against those who see the resurrection as a return to life as we know it, with the added bonus of immortality. But in any case, Archbishop Hilarion must speak for himself. He is an excellent theologian and deserves a charitable reading.

Of course we must emphatically proclaim the resurrection of the body--we are not gnostics or Platonists--but we must be careful not to dogmatize on the physics of the Eschaton, as if we know more about these matters than the Apostles. "Behold!" declares St Paul, "I tell you a mystery."

I'd like to return to the original question: Are Christians guilty of cannibalism? As ably explained by others in this thread, the charge of cannibalism does not really apply. But I would also like to suggest that we should not dismiss the charge too hastily. We truly do believe and confess that in the Holy Eucharist we eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ. The graphic language of eating and drinking is deeply and inescapably rooted in the New Testament, the Church Fathers, and the liturgical prayers and hymns. The following passage from St John Chrysostom has long been one of my favorites:

Quote

Those men then at that time reaped no fruit from what was said, but we have enjoyed the benefit in the very realities. Wherefore it is necessary to understand the marvel of the Mysteries, what it is, why it was given, and what is the profit of the action. We become one Body, and "members of His flesh and of His bones." Let the initiated follow what I say. In order then that we may become this not by love only, but in very deed, let us be blended into that flesh. This is effected by the food which He has freely given us, desiring to show the love which He has for us. On this account He has mixed up Himself with us; He has kneaded up His body with ours, that we might be a certain One Thing, like a body joined to a head. For this belongs to them who love strongly; this, for instance, Job implied, speaking of his servants, by whom he was beloved so exceedingly, that they desired to cleave unto his flesh. For they said, to show the strong love which they felt, "Who would give us to be satisfied with his flesh?" Wherefore this also Christ has done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and to show His love for us; He has given to those who desire Him not only to see Him, but even to touch, and eat Him, and fix their teeth in His flesh, and to embrace Him, and satisfy all their love.

Is this cannibalism? No ... yet the scandal and offense remains. We truly do orally partake of Christ.

"IF anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial [body], and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit: let him be anathema." (Anathema 11 against Origen)

I heard from some Ukrainian Eastern Rite Catholics who call me a degenerate perverter of the true teaching of the Church (because I am a "materialist") that these so-called anathemas against Origen, written centuries after Origen's death, were not even discussed by the Council but added to the proceedings of the Council because emperor Justinian hated Origen... Some people do not want to consider these anathemas as reflections of the Church's teaching.

That seems hard to justify considering that we have statement like this in the acts of the council: "And we found that many others had been anathematised after death, also even Origen; and if any one were to go back to the times of Theophilus of blessed memory or further he would have found him anathematised after death; which also now your holiness and Vigilius, the most religious Pope of Old Rome has done in his case." Not to mention his condemnation in the 11th Capitula which was not called into question until modern times.

"Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead. Moreover [they condemned] what things were written by Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of blessed Cyril, and that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas."

Even if Byzantine Catholics try to call this into question, there can be no doubt of their authority in Orthodoxy.

"Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead. Moreover [they condemned] what things were written by Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of blessed Cyril, and that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas."

Even if Byzantine Catholics try to call this into question, there can be no doubt of their authority in Orthodoxy.

Father,

It's likely that I am not a typical Catholic, much less typical eastern Catholic, but I cannot ever remember at any time in my life as a Catholic being told by any teacher that I respected that I could readily ignore any local councils.

This falls into a beside-the-point category and I don't mean to start a rabbit trail here.

"Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead. Moreover [they condemned] what things were written by Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of blessed Cyril, and that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas."

Even if Byzantine Catholics try to call this into question, there can be no doubt of their authority in Orthodoxy.

Father,

It's likely that I am not a typical Catholic, much less typical eastern Catholic, but I cannot ever remember at any time in my life as a Catholic being told by any teacher that I respected that I could readily ignore any local councils.

This falls into a beside-the-point category and I don't mean to start a rabbit trail here.

EM

I am totally with ya there elijahmaria. I can think a particular local that holds considerable weight with Catholics: The council of Orange (spelling?), because of its condemnation of pelagianism.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

"Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead. Moreover [they condemned] what things were written by Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of blessed Cyril, and that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas."

Even if Byzantine Catholics try to call this into question, there can be no doubt of their authority in Orthodoxy.

Father,

It's likely that I am not a typical Catholic, much less typical eastern Catholic, but I cannot ever remember at any time in my life as a Catholic being told by any teacher that I respected that I could readily ignore any local councils.

This falls into a beside-the-point category and I don't mean to start a rabbit trail here.

EM

Good to hear! I was actually just referring to Heorhij's comment about Easter rite Catholics saying he was a perverter of truth, so I was referring to them. Perhaps should have inserted the word "certain" or "those particular" into my sentence. I hope no offense was taken due to my poor choice of words.

Good to hear! I was actually just referring to Heorhij's comment about Easter rite Catholics saying he was a perverter of truth, so I was referring to them. Perhaps should have inserted the word "certain" or "those particular" into my sentence. I hope no offense was taken due to my poor choice of words.

I do my level best never to take offense Father, even when it is intended, so its a breeze when its not!! I thought you might be pleased to hear though that some of us are trained pretty well! ....It's difficult to tell sometimes for all the "noise."

Whether the message is misunderstood or not, it seems that the congregants who read His Eminence's word erroneously believe in an spirit form of body, and not a material form. For this, I think His Eminence needs to clarify to help not have congregants go astray, as is clear from Heorhij's experiences.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Whether the message is misunderstood or not, it seems that the congregants who read His Eminence's word erroneously believe in an spirit form of body, and not a material form. For this, I think His Eminence needs to clarify to help not have congregants go astray, as is clear from Heorhij's experiences.

Would there be a problem if Metropolitan Hilarion, a Russian prelate, offered corrective advice to Ukrainians--as congregants?

Whether the message is misunderstood or not, it seems that the congregants who read His Eminence's word erroneously believe in an spirit form of body, and not a material form. For this, I think His Eminence needs to clarify to help not have congregants go astray, as is clear from Heorhij's experiences.

Would there be a problem if Metropolitan Hilarion, a Russian prelate, offered corrective advice to Ukrainians--as congregants?

I am afraid patriotic Ukrainians will not listen to him because he is from the Moscow Patriarchate (a.k.a. KGB-FSB Patriarchate or the Kremlin's Department of Religious Affairs). On the other hand, Ukrainian Orthodox who are faithful to the Moscow Patriarchate (the canonical folks) are way too busy hating Ukraine to bother themselves with insignificant things like body, matter, spirit, the Eucharist etc. (Mods, this is HUMOR, IRONY! Please do not move to "Politics"! ))

I am an ex-Catholic, currently a catechumen in the Greek Orthodox Church. The discussion re: 'transubstantiation' is very helpful to me. In the discussion regarding the 'spatial' presence of The Risen Christ in the context of His enthronement at the right hand of the Father and his Precious Body and Blood present to us in Holy Communion at the Divine Liturgy, 2 scriptures came to mind. John 3:13 and 20:26. I have also wondered for many years what was meant in scripture when Christ's post-resurrection appearances were described using the language... "He appeared in ANOTHER FORM".

I would sincerely appreciate someone commenting on what I have written here. Your help is very much appreciated. I understand and rejoice in the reality of 'mystery'... it invites wonder, prayer and a more earnest seeking of 'understanding' (but not 'understanding' as an end in and of itself).

Christ is Risen!

Ivanov

« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM by Ivanov »

Logged

"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." - "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes." - Holy Gospel

I am an ex-Catholic, currently a catechumen in the Greek Orthodox Church. The discussion re: 'transubstantiation' is very helpful to me. In the discussion regarding the 'spatial' presence of The Risen Christ in the context of His enthronement at the right hand of the Father and his Precious Body and Blood present to us in Holy Communion at the Divine Liturgy, 2 scriptures came to mind. John 3:13 and 20:26. I have also wondered for many years what was meant in scripture when Christ's post-resurrection appearances were described using the language... "He appeared in ANOTHER FORM".

I would sincerely appreciate someone commenting on what I have written here. Your help is very much appreciated. I understand and rejoice in the reality of 'mystery'... it invites wonder, prayer and a more earnest seeking of 'understanding' (but not 'understanding' as an end in and of itself).

Christ is Risen!

Ivanov

Hi Ivanov,

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for commentary on? The one clear question in your post is with regards to "another form". To the best of my knowledge this phrase is used once in St. Mark's account of His encounter with the disciples on the road to Emmaus (though I could be misremembering or you could be thinking of a different translation than the ones I'm most familiar with). As that passage makes clear at least part of what 'another form' means is simply that Christ looked like a different person so the disciples didn't not immediately recognize him. And as far as I can recall that is all the Fathers take from this passage--this isn't even necessarily tied to His risen, glorified form as there are passages from His pre- resurrection ministry where His enemies sought to lay hands on Him and suddenly couldn't find Him. The passages are a little vague as to whether they are talking about Him disguising His appearance, messing His pursuer's perceptions so they couldn't see him, or actual invisibility, but it's pretty clear He exerted some degree of His miraculous power to make sure they couldn't lay hands on Him before His time had come even when He was standing right in front of them.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great